Search
document

Document text Analytics

WARD v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19526/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45615

Document date: July 5, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

WARD v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19526/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45615

Document date: July 5, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 19526/92

Nicholas WARD

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 5 July 1993)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article

25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Nicholas Ward against

the United Kingdom on 18 November 1991. It was registered on

18 February 1992 under file No. 19526/92.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Prince

Evans, solicitors from London. The respondent Government were

represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office.

3. On 8 January 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights (First

Chamber) declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to

carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which

provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the

parties an examination of the petition and, if need

be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of

which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary

facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the

disposal of the parties concerned with a view to

securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the

basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this

Convention."

4. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 5 July 1993 adopted this

Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,

is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution

reached.

5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1963. He is

currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at H.M. Prison Albany on

the Isle of Wight.

7. The applicant received a discretionary life sentence on 18

January 1985 for manslaughter, having been found to be of diminished

responsibility. He did not appeal against conviction or sentence.

8. His "tariff" expired in or about 1988, since when, according to

a letter of 27 October 1991 from the Home Office, the applicant's

continued detention has depended solely on the risk that he presents.

9. The applicant's case was reviewed by the Local Review Committee

(LRC) in September 1988. When the case came before the Parole Board

in January 1989, the Board did not recommend release.

10. The applicant went before the LRC again in January 1991. He

states that all the reports on him were excessive. By letter dated 30

July 1991, the Home Office informed him that the Parole Board had not

recommended his release. He was also informed that his case was to be

referred to the LRC again in July 1994.

11. The applicant complained to the Commission that he had no

possibility of having the continued lawfulness of his detention

reviewed, as required by Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention. The

applicant further complained under Article 5 para. 5 that he had no

enforceable right to compensation in respect of the above breach.

12. On 8 January 1993, the Commission declared admissible the

applicant's complaints under Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 of the

Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para.

1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals

they wished to make.

14. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

15. Between January and April 1993 there were negotiations between

the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.

16. By letter dated 8 February 1993 the Government proposed to settle

the case on the basis of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991

(in force since October 1992) which provision is intended to give the

Parole Board the powers and functions of a court. They stated that the

applicant's case would be considered by the Parole Board sitting in its

new capacity on 27-28 April 1993 and offered to pay the applicant's

legal costs. By letter dated 26 April 1993, the applicant accepted this

offer.

17. At its session on 5 July 1993 the Commission found that the

parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It

further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

18. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (F. ERMACORA)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant